- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 07:00:18 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak 2009-02-02 05.08: > > On Feb 1, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> Sam Ruby 2009-02-02 02.20: >>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>>> Lachlan Hunt 2009-02-01 03.30: >>>>> -public-html >>>>> +www-archive >> >>>>>> I see a "strawman". >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, that's not a strawman either. Maciej was just pointing that >>>>> the he largely agreed with what Sam wrote, except for one small part. >>>> >>>> You (and Majiej) make it sound as if there is any difference between >>>> saying >>>> >>>> "I disagree in point x." >>>> and >>>> "I agree, except in point x." >>> My guidance was inconsistent. "give each other the benefit of the >>> doubt" vs. "call them out when you see them". I'd suggest we would >>> all benefit from giving the former a bit more weight than the latter. >> >> I subscribe to this. >> >>> One thing that may also not be clear here: "I think it is helpful to >>> the group to see people coming to agreement" is a making a subtle >>> point that Maciej sees "coming to an agreement" a subclass worth >>> distinguishing from "if you agree". >>> And, you know what? I tend to agree. >> >> It might be that I not fully have grasped the fullness of things you >> two have disagreed about, and so I was not able to appreciate enough >> that you two come together on all other points. I of course appreciate >> that you are coming together. >> >> However, I have not, unlike Maciej, expressed disagreement in the >> particular point that he did express it on. And unlike Lachlan I do >> not consider this point a minor one either. On the contrary, if there >> is one thing I think particular important, then it is that there are >> quite fixed and orderly rules for how to raise issues. And I therefore >> was very happy to see you suggest such formalias. I would consider the >> vagueness that Maciej suggested instead as only more of the same >> situation as we have today. (Besides, if I remember, you allowed for >> some judgement even in your rule - it was not just "count 3 person and >> go".) >> >> This has been a problem in the past. There were many issues that were >> raised, but thenafter closed. The main problem in this was not the >> fact that they were closed (which were discouraging enough though) but >> the fact that there were no fixed rules for how to go forward with >> what what cared for. It is much more easy to accept that one looses an >> issue if one know the rules, and can say that one tried to follow them >> and yet still lost. >> >> Many things have been tried: the Wiki, the issue tracker - and other >> things. I am not the one that have tried the hardest, I do not fully >> grasp all the rules and "institutions" for our group - so I am not the >> one to explain it best. But I have been with others who tried to raise >> issues, and have seen their wikipages been deleted, their issues in >> the tracker not being accepted and so on. Hence rules to calculate >> with is needed. (I only speak for myself, however, I do not guarantee >> if others think the rules you proposed are good enough.) >> >> Hence I felt it important to say that Maciej was stating disagreement. >> He only gave the reason "much work" for not having that rule, so his >> opposition might not be too strong. Here is hoping that it is so. >> >> Your letter was a much appreciated step in the right direction. I am >> glad to agree with Maciej in that. > > Hi Leif, > > If you think that Sam's proposal to record all open issues in the spec > itself is a good one, then in my opinion you should argue in its favor, > and do that on public-html. But (incorrectly) accusing people of making > strawman arguments doesn't do anything to promote your case. What you > wrote above would have been a much better reply to my original email > than what I said. Ok, Maciej, thank you for saying so. If Sam think it would be right to continue the debate [he asked us to not debate on the list], I can certainly send about the same thing to the list - unless it has moved to another subject by then. I hope that we get good rules and moves from a dysfunctional group to a more functional one. That is most important to me. For anything that might have disfocused that goal, I'm sorry. Regards, Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 06:01:01 UTC